Well, it would seem that I'm one of the latest victims of MPX's rather dubious business practices. Briefly, I had a quote of £115 for my Samsung Galaxy S in spotless condition, sent via Special Delivery in their own packaging, recieved a revised quote of £70 due to a "cracked battery case". Contacted them they said they get the phone rechecked and get back to me in 24 hours. Three days later no response. So I called and spoke to a crap customer service advisor who said he'd speak to his supervisor. Two minutes later he said that they could offer me £83. I refused and saked for the phone to be sent back along with a photographic evidence of the damage (so I could claim on the Royal Mail insurance. The photo I received showed the smallest of scratches, which I'm positive wasn't there when the phone was posted and couldn't have happend in transit due to the nature of the scratch. I also couldn't be sure the photo was of my phone and I wno't know that till I get it back. The customer advisor said that they would never use a phone recycling company and that they keep their old phones. I found this a very strange thing to be saying. He said that if I wanted the phone back I'd have tp pay the admin charge of £10 but this could only be paid by cheque or PayPal. When I asked for the PayPal email address he said that only his supervisor could give me this info and that he had just gone into a meeting (depsite the advisor speaking to him just two minutes earlier). He gave me the name of his supervisor as Andy Douglas and said he would call me back within 24 hours. It was then that I thought I'd check out thsi site for any similar experiences with MPX...well what a surprise to find that they've been doing exactly the same thing to many other customers for several years!! Here's what I think: They offer a great quote to come up in any comparison sites thus ensuring they get the lions share of customers. They then revise the quote and hope that the additional sweetner will be enough to secure your phone, despite this being considerably less than the original quote. I'm sure they think "Well they probably got the phone for free so what do they care". They then make it extremely difficult for you to get your property back by utilising delaying tactics and crappy returns policy hoping that will also secure your property. End result? They make a huge profit on the phones sent to them knowing that they have you via their questionable T & Cs. I've written to them via their basic email address but I'm also sending a copty to Marc Walters via recorded delivery. Their business practices suck and appear almost like a virtual mugging. What's so wrong with expecting a decent service from a business? Particularly one that counts Vodafone as one of their customers? I only wish I'd investigated MPX via this site before getting involved with them. I expect I'll continue to struggle with them for the next few weeks to get either the original quote or my property back. What I find very worrying is that it seems like the phones are either damaged on purpose by someone (as I said my phone was in mint condition before posting) or that or the damaged was caused by Royal Mail Special Delivery in a padded envelope. But why would MPX not state that the phone arrived in damaged packaging? If I make a claim on the insurance, since this would be the logical thing to do, could it be said that MPX are also defrauding Royal Mail if the damage didn't occur en route? Obviously I have no way of knowing exactly how my phone was damaged but, to keep from being too paranoid I would have to assume it was in the Royal Mail system...wouldn't I? Just another example of the culture of rip-em-off and get what you can from them that seems to be the culture among so many businesses in this country nowadays.

Hi, let me start by giving the facts: Moved out of rented house two months ago. Property appeared to be owned by a development company who then arranged for letting agent to rent when unable to sell. We paid a deposit of £2k. Letting agent said that they would arrange for Tenancy Deposit Protection scheme. Initially some question over who would manage the property agent or owner. Agent mailed us to say they would manage the property. This is reflected in tenancy agreement (Assured Shorthold). Following our vacating the premises we had a check out completed with no issues. Property was then sold and owner stated they would return the full deposit. Two and half months later no sign of the deposit being returned. We're pretty sure that the deposit was never registered with a TDPS. The owner, who lives in Zug Switzerland, asked my partner for her bank details to send money transfer to. They now state that they were never a director of the company and that because the company was registered in the Marshall Islands(!!!) he is not able to pay us. This is his response to my email yesterday asking for urgent resolution: “I am not a Director of the Company, that is registered in the Marshall Islands, and I never have been. I was hopeful of the payment of my expenses and a “success fee”, however I suspect the deal was a loss maker and I do not think I will ever receive my full dues. Thank you for your comments on UK Law, although I am not sure that anyone from the Marshall Islands would be concerned by a UK Court Action, I doubt they would attend the Court. Would a judgement be enforeceable, if indeed the company remained in existence and had funds available ? I would happily attend a UK Court and explain the situation “from my side”, but I would require my expenses to be paid, as is usual under UK Law.” So it seems that although this is the person who was our main contact and to whom we arranged payments (to a bank in Birmingham based on the sort code) they now state they had nothing to do with the business. I know that he was a key person in the organisation and that he appears to have made sure that he is not a director to ensure he can be absolved of any blame. To me this is outright fraud and he never had any intention of repaying the deposit. We have a complete paper trail of mails to/from the person we thought owned the property and the agent plus the original tenancy agreement and are weighing up our options but as you can see he seems to think we are powerless. I should also add the property was one of two new builds both of which the company have now recently sold so there's the fact that a large sum of money was been transferred for the sale of these properties. Additional info Tenancy was assured shorthold (12mth with 6mth break clause) We vacated after giving required notice on 18/06/2011 Monthly rent was: £1450 pcm My questions then are: 1. Where do we stand considering that it seems the deposit was never placed into a TDPS? 2. What are the realistic chances of getting recompense from a company that MAY be registered overseas? 3. How culpable are the letting agents since they agreed to manage the property? If we cannot get money from the owner can we sue the agent? 4. Can we sue the individual who appeared to be the owner of the property (even though they live in Switzerland)? This is a considerable amount of money for us as we have now bought a property and have a young baby. We feel very upset knowing that we appear to have been knowingly defrauded. Any help or advice would be very gratefully received. Many thanks, - Bruce

Can I send the Subject Access Request directly to Robinson Way or do I have to send it to Cap One. Will Robinson Way be able to provide a full statement of the account? Thanks.

Hi there, been dealing with Robinson Way lately regarding an alleged Cap One Debt of £3,407.80. I requested a true copy of the CCA and received the usual photostat of teh signed application form plus an obvious newly printed copy of a 'Credit Agreement Regulated by the CCA 19974'. This includes the charges but no credit limit or repayment details i.e. the precribed terms. They also neglected to send any statement. So I'm wondering what letter to send to them next. There is also the issue that the debt may be statute barred as it may very well be over six years old (the application was signed August 2000) but I'm not entirely sure whether to just go straight for the statute barred route or to argue that the CCA is not complete and therefore not enforceable. I strikes me that without any statement of account I should be sending them the letter about the questionable agreement/application? One last question regards the T & Cs that Robinson Way have included. I've been reading about the definition of a 'true' copy and wonder whether these new prints can be accepted since I have no idea if the interest rates they quote were the same as when the application was first signed. Any help would be very gratefully received. Virgopunk